DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 355 232 SP 034 395

AUTHOR Murray, David R.; And OthersTITLE On the Road to Empowerment: A Comprehensive Analysis

of Teacher Involvement in Decision MakingProcesses.

PUB DATE Feb 93NOTE 27p.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the

Eastern Educational Research Association (ClearwaterBeach, FL, February 17-20, 1993).

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)Speeches /Conference Papers (150)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Administrator Attitudes; *College School

Cooperation; Comparative Analysis; ElementarySecondary Education; Higher Education; *ParticipativeDecision Making; Program Development; *ProgramImplementation; Public Schools; Research Design;School Restructuring; School Surveys; State Surveys;*Teacher Attitudes; Teacher Educators

IDENTIFIERS *Georgia; Perceived Reality; *Teacher Empowerment

ABSTRACTWithin the arena of public school reform, teacher

empowerment and participation in the decision making process at thebuilding level are of paramount importance. A collaborative team ofteacher educators and public school staff was assembled to assessvarious perceptions of site-based decision making throughout Georgia.A random sample of 400 building level administrators and teacherswere asked to respond to a questionnaire designed to identify generalperceptions related to what actually exists in site-based decisionmaking and the level of importance placed on the concept within theschool government structure. Five areas were examined: schoolclimate; staff development; competency requirements; program content;and implementation patterns. A comparative analysis of respondents'perceptions and aspirations as reflected by importance indicatorssuggests: commitment to the inclusionary process; a correlationbetween building level administrators' commitment the process andto levels of program development, implementation, and success; andprevailing conditions within the schools of Georgia are such thatsite-based decision making can begin to evolve. Data are presented intabular form. (Contains 20 references.) (LL)

***********************-************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

On the Road to Empowerment:A Comprehensive Analysis of

Teacher Involvement inDecision making Processes

Presented to theEastern Educational Research Association

Clearwater Beach, FLFebruary 17-20, 1993

By: Dr. David R. Murray,Castleton State College, Castleton, VT

Mrs. Mariko TinneyFloyd County Schools, Rome, GA

Dr. Jesse LasseterBerry College, Rome, GAMrs. Brenda Atkins and

Dr. Robert PuckettFloyd County Schools, Rome, GA

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

1Y).Loun

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC1."

U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EISUCAT:0,4Omce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (EMI

; Thin docurno has been reproduced asreceived fro. e person or OfgenaStOnOncitnattng

t' Minor changes hive been made to .mprovereproductrOn Cu y

Points of stem or opinions stated m ih,s document do not necessarily r present °MoatOERI paitit*On or p011ty

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Abstract:

Within the arena of public school reform, teacher empowerment and teacher participationin the decision making process at the building level, are of paramount importance. Many believethat unless stalre holders are involved in critical decision making efforts, other reforms will notcome to fruition. There also exists within the schools, a level of reluctance to share power to meetthese ends. With these concerns in mind, a collaborative team was assembled to assess the variousperceptions of site-based decision making throughout the state of Georgia. The team wasrepresented by faculty from teacher education programs and staff from the public schools. Inmany ways, the collaborative process with higher education and the public schools to undertakethis study was as interesting as the study itself. The team came together to explore researchmethodology, devise a research strategy and then to implement the research process. The processproved to be very successful because it collectively used the varying expertise of its members tostrengthen both the education of future teachers and the school improvement efforts.

The major focus of this study was to assess the level of site-based decision making effortsin public schools throughout the state. A random sample of approximately 400 building leveladministrators and teachers were surveyed. From this population over 56% elected to return thequestionnaire. The questionnaire was designed to identify the general perception of respondentsrelated to what actually existed in the area of site-based decision making and the level ofimportance placed on that concept within the school governance structure. Five areas wereexamined. Data was collected on climate, staff development efforts, competency requirements,content of the program and implementation patterns at the schools. Discussion will focus on acomparative analysis of what respondents perceived as existed and what their aspirations are asreflected by importance indicators. Data is presented in table form.

Among the conclusions drawn would suggest that the overwhelming majority werestrongly committed tp the inclusionary process of site-based decision making. There is a strongcorrelation between louilding level administrators' commitment to the process and the level ofdevelopment and actual levels of success of the implementation of the program. In all areasexamined what was reported to exist was rated lower than its perceived importance. This wouldsuggest that much still needs to be done before shared governance becomes a functional reality.

The study is significant in that findings may be used to develop a working model whichcould be used to introduce site-based decision making concepts to small rural schools throughoutthe country. In addition, findings can be used by teacher education communities to improve thetraining of both teachers and administrators on this very important concept. Finally, thecollaborative nature of the college/school research team, in its own right, should promote futurejoint ventures. These types of endeavors can only help to improve and strengthen the future courseof education.

On the Road to Empowerment:A Comprehensive Analysis of

Teacher Involvement inDecision Making Processes

by: David R. Murray, Mariko Tinney, Jesse Lasseter,Brenda Atkins and Robert Puckett

Introduction:

In a time when many feel there is a continuing crisis in education, it appears that the

general public is ready for dramatic changes in the ways schools operate in order to bring about

better services for students and communities. These feelings have given rise to serious

restructuring efforts centered around the concept of teacher empowerment being realized at the

local school building level. Schools around the nation are moving towards decentralized, site-

based management plans. In simplified form, "the theory of professional empowerment is that,

when given collective responsibility in an information-rich environment, educators will work

harder and smarter on behalf of their clients: students and their parents" (Glickman, 1989 p.6).

Once we accept. the theory of professional empowerment, it then becomes imperative that

we also understand and accept the fact that each school community throughout America is

different. For example, the makeup of each school constituency group is diverse and the school

staff varies in many ways at each school site. In addition, the principal and other building level

administrators are different as well. Most certainly, the students' needs in the various schools are

as different as the very nature of our diverse nat:on. How then, given the differences that exist in

our schools, is it possible to find common ground as we seek to obtain goals and objectives that

are unique for each school community? Furthermore, how can we strike a balance between these

special needs at the building level and meet the aspirations of our national educational agenda?

This appears to be a fundamental and basic challenge for those .schools seeking to empower

teachers and bring about significant and enduring change - change that will help our students

compete in a global economic climate and at the same time make pos;tive contributions to a local

community in which they live.

4

Once we acknowledge that the needs at each school site are different, it becomesimperative that we respect these conclusions and work with this understanding as we consider aprocess for change. While certain significant outcomes in each school will be unique to thatschool community, other outcomes will be common in response to national initiatives. Thisbalance must be obtained and local educators should be involved in formulating the strategieswhich achieve this balance.

One of the fundamental common denominators in the move to empower teachers is in therealm of effective decision making at the local school site. This study revealed that theoverwhelming majority surveyed were strongly committed to the inciusionary process of site-based decision making. It is acknowledged in school systems that decision making is mosteffective when it is closest to the site where the decisions will be implemented and monitored.Further, research clearly indicates that teachers who actively participate in making decisionshave greater job satisfaction which results in better teaching and increased student involvementand learning. It seems clear that when collective decisions are made at the school site, allparticipants feel "ownership" of the process and put forth maximum effort to ensure success.

While effective decision making is an important base for any local site management plan,it is important to understand that the detail components of successful programs are,unfortunately, to a large degree not exportable. People should realize that success comes notfrom the detailed work done by the school, but primarily by the faculty whose "ownership" willnot let the plan fail. The responsibility lies with those at the local site and every effort will bemade to ensure success.

Therefore, when an empowered school succeeds, it has developed a program that isunique to its own staff, students, parents and community. Correctly, school reformer CarlGlickman (1990) has stated "the PROCESS of how a school came to such decisions is moretransferable than the program." He further states "it is only the general notion of informed,representative decision-making that can be easily transported" (pg. 72).

While recognizing that specific decision making procedures in one school cannot alwaysbe a prescription for success in other schools, this study examined those skills, techniques andprocedures that appear to be significant in all empowered schools. The study has attempted toarticulate and define the concepts of decision making which appear to be significant regardless oflocal circumstances. Further, the study indicates that certain skills and techniques can enhance

2

local decision making, and at the same time, leave the substance of empowerment in the hands of

the local school community.

Review of the Literature:

Historically, site-based decision making has its roots in private sector philosophies andpractices. In the early 1900's, in the initial stages of the development of business, and hence

organizations, scientific management determined that efficiency and cost effectiveness resulted

when human resources were used to produce products in the most efficient way, with little or noregard for input or decision making by the worker. Frederick Taylor (1911) believed the bestway to increase output was to improve the techniques used by workers. Consequently, Taylor

considered people as instruments or machines to be manipulated by leaders. Accepting this

assumption, other theorists of the scientific management movement proposed that anorganization be developed to create more efficiency in administration, consequently increasingproduction.

Hersey and Blanchard (1988) interpreted this altitude as management divorced fromhuman affairs and emotions. They indicated that, "The result was that the workers had to adjustto the management and not the management to the worker3" (p. 87). Another theorist, Douglas

McGregor (1960) called this attitude about how workers were to be perceived Theory X.Theory X assumes that most workers are not interested in assuming responsibility and preferbeing directed. McGregor developed his own theory, Theory Y, which assumes that people bynature are not lazy and that they can be self-directed at work if properly motivated.

Although some aspects of site-based decision making in education have their roots in theprivate sector, the first gleanings of faculty involvement in decision making are found in thelaboratory schools that come out of Dewey's Progressive Movement. Innovations in curriculumteaching strategies, and school organization were encouraged by the university and educationdepartments with whom the schools were affiliated. The school organization enjoyed collegialitybetween the faculties of the universities, colleges and the laboratory schools. The exchange ofknowledge that resulted from this new relationship among teachers promoted innovation.

The bureaucracy of public education which was influenced by scientific management'semphasis on rules, regulations and structures began to crack in the 1940's when administratorsmade some attempt to involve their faculties in decision making. These attempts coincided withthe human relations movement in American management.

3

6

The once coercive or authoritarian management styles were slowly replaced by thehuman relations movement which emphasized that organizations could experience success if themanagers fostered cooperation among the employees.

By the 1920's and the 1930's, Elton Mayo and his associates initiated the human relationsmovement which was to replace the trend initiated by Taylor. This movement determined thatthe real power of an organization lies with the collective commitment of the workers. Accordingto Mayo (1945), "the organization had to be developed around the workers and had to take intoconsideration human feelings and attitudes" (p.23). Mayo emphasized the individual worker'sdesire for acceptance by his peers. 'Management's role in Mayo's model was to provide anenvironment in which workers could fulfill their natural desire for cooperation" (Perroi.v, 1979, p36).

Chester Barnard (1939), also a leader in the human relations movement, viewedorganizations as cooperative rather than coercive. As recorded by the National EducationAssociation (1988), in Barnard's view, "subordinates granted superiors the authority to makedecisions." Like Mayo, Barnard, realized that informal groups "played an important role inintraorganizational communication and in encouraging organizational cohesiveness." (SeeEmployee Participation Programs, p. 9)

Frederick Herzbergh (1959) developed his theory, motivational hygiene, as he sensed thatknowledge about human nature, motives and needs could be invaluable to organizations andindividuals. He found that when people were dissatisfied with their jobs, their concern centeredon their working environment. When people felt good about their jobs, they seemed to bemotivated by the work itself. The motivators included achievement, recognition ofaccomplishment, challenging work, increased responsibility, and personal growth anddevelopment.

In his research, Rensis Likert (1961) found that "supervisors with the best records ofperformance focus their primary attention on the human aspects of their subordinates' problemsand on endeavoring to build effective work groups with high performance goals" (p. 7). He alsofound that high producing supervisors "make clear to their subordinates what the objectives areand what needs to be accomplished and then give them the freedom to do the job" (p. 7).

4

r7

By the 1940's, rigid, authoritarian structures, rules and regulations, and highly formalizedcontrol systems characterized by management, had a firm hold in the bureaucracy of publiceducation. The human relations movement had a softening effect on these formal structures.The results of the human relati:ns movement in education saw the birth of faculty advisorycommittees and many informal mechanisms designed to diminish the social and emotionaldistance between teachers and administrators.

Even though the bureaucracy had experienced some weakening with the advent of thehuman relations movement, there were many areas in which it remained intact. Unfortunately,the shift in managerial emphasis still lacked substance in faculty involvement in decisionmaking. "Its predominate emphasis was consultation, not participation" (Employee ParticipationPrograms, NEA, p. 10). Management continued to control the directing of school operations;however, the human relations approach did raise managerial consciousness about the importanceof the inner workings of the school environment and informal groups. Yet, the emphasisremained, "the control of employee behavior and not the transformation of the schoolorganization" (Employee Participation Programs, NEA, p. 10).

The missing ingredient in true site-based decision making at this point was directparticipation. In the 1960's, the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for CognitiveLearning introduced Research and Instruction Units into several public schools. The intent wasto initiate school reorganization by establishing new relationships "among central staff members,subject matter consultants, building principals, teachers and non certified personnel" (Smith andKlausmeier, 1967, p. 10). New programs were designed by school personnel cooperating withResearch and Development Center staff. Within the schools, teamwork was encouraged toimprove and refine the instructional program.

According to research conducted by John Goodlad (1984) and his colleagues, "the degreeof staff cohesiveness and the nature of problem-solving and decision-making climates within theschools were highly related to teacher satisfaction."

Recently, private sector workplace initiatives, the research on effective schools, decliningpublic confidence in education and reports such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission onExcellence in Education, 1983) and A Nation Prepared: Teachers for the Twenty-First Century(Task Force on Teaching as a Profession, Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy,1986), have placed external and internal pressures on public education for change and haveforced many educators to take restructuring schools seriously. Education reform has now

5

connected the health of the nation's educational system to the health of the economy. A NationAt Risk had a powerful impact on public perceptions because it contended that "the presentsystem of education could not adequately prepare students for the nation's increasingly

technological society" (Site-based Decision making: A Guidance and Training Manual, NEA,p. 12). As in past economic and social crises, Americans have turned to education to demand anew and Improved supply of young people with the knowledge and skills to make our nation

once again competitive with foreign markets. As a result, educators are scrambling to search for

corrections in educational weaknesses in the system, and schoolsare being restructured.

There is a new consensus on the urgency of making our schools once again the enginesof progress, productivity, and prosperity. Furthermore, the key to success lies in creatinga profession equal to the task - a profession of well-educated teachers prepared to assumenew powers and responsibilities to redesign schools of the future (Carnegie Forum,1986).

One of the recommendations of the Task on Teaching as a Profession of the CarnegieForum on Education and the Economy, was to "restructure schools to provide a professionalenvironment for teachers, freeing them to decide how best to meet state and local goals forchildren while holding them accountable for student progress" (Carnegie Forum, 1986).

In 1986, the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy released A Nation Prepared.Like the Presidential Commission on Excellence in Education in A Nation at Risk, the CarnegieForum in its report expressed the concern that the nation's economic healthwas connected to itseducational health. The basic recommendation of the Carnegie report was to professionalizeteaching. It proposed that

stricter standards be coupled with high levels of compensation designed to attractqualified candidates and that decentralized decision making (which grants teachers moreopportunity to exercise their professional discretion) be featured prominently in schools.In this way quality would be ensured by the standards process and not by top-downregulations, thus allowing teachers greater autonomy and room for decision making in theeducational process .

The decentralized decision making the report proposed, according to the NEA in itstraining manual for site-based decision making, however, "was limited by a tiered teaching force

with teachers in the upper tiers having significantly greater decision making authority than

teachers in lower tiers" (p. 11).

For the past two decades reform of public schools has been on the political agenda from

the White House to the State House. During the 1970's the focus of reform was on the return to

the basics which resulted in the creation of state and national standards of achievement. Public

school policy had not been decided at the school level. For example, the Georgia Association of

Educators (GAE) Restructuring of Schools Task Force (1991) found that under current structures

"top-down mandates became the way to ensure educational excellence" (p. 1). Even though the

top-down approach has not achieved the immediate change desired by the reformers, it has

resulted in more attention and resources being directed towards improving public schools. GAE

stated that,

since 1983, states have generated more rules and regulations dealing with education than

in the previous twenty years combined. There were more than 700 state statutes enacted

between 1984 and 1986. Of all the states, Georgia was one of the most highly regulated.

The effect of such prolific legislation on public schools has been a regulatory maze that

often paralyzes decision making (p. 2).

Emphasis is placed on compliance, whereas, innovation is sacrificed for mediocrity.

Furthermore, GAE stated that:

For education to benefit all students, the major : -isions about education must be made

where the students are -- that is - the local schools. Those decisions must be made by

teachers, students, parents, and other community resources. It is becoming increasingly

clear that the local school must have the power to develop and implement policy that best

meets the needs and goals of the school and the community it serves (p. 2).

One recommendation of the Georgia Association of Educators Restructuring of Schools

Task Force (1989) was to establish pilot programs for site-based decision makingas models fordecentralizing educational governance where appropriate" (p. 4).

Harvey and Crandall (1988) asserted that "if significant changes in the educational

system are to occur, restructuring efforts must be focused on and driven by the local level. If

restructuring is to be successful, it must be building-based" (p. 11).

7

1 0

Timar and Kirp (1987) point out the limitations of a top-down approach. "A school mustset a tone that will be apparent to the students. That tone, an organizational ethos, determines thecharacter of the school. It sets the expectation for excellence or failure. But it is created byindividuals working in schools, not by bureaucratic mandates that emanate from distant places"(p. 308).

As a result of all the foregoing movements, there has been more emphasis on the humanrelations approach, therefore preparing the way for new decision making models beingdeveloped at the school level. Also, there has been more decentralization of the bureaucracy.Because of these movements, more efforts are currently being made to change publiceducationfrom a top-down organization to an organization developed through the decision making effortsof the stakeholders at the local level.

Statement of the Problem:

Professional empowerment is not an issue per se. Schools across the country haveagreed in principle, if not in practice, to involve teachers as stakeholders in the decision makingefforts and to collectively study and make the changes necessary to improve our schools. Wealso suggested that schools are different and these differences will undoubtedly influence howteacher empowerment will be articulated and implemented.

The problem that our research team considered worthy of investigating relates toidentifying what common practices need to exist within the public school environment tosuccessfully articulate and implement initial site-based decision making efforts. It was quiteobvious that some schools adapted the theories which promoted teacher empowermentsuccessfully, while others did not. To identify these common practices, general perceptions wereidentified from a random selection of teachers and administrators from the public school sitesthroughout the state of Georgia. The level of actual existence and a level of perceivedimportance was identified in five areas. The five areas include assessing the site climate, thelevel of staff development, identifying competencies required, content of the site-based decisionmaking program and the implementation patterns that participants generally perceived.

8

Level ofExistence

Figure No. 1Research Design Model by Area

Assess the Levelof Site Based

Decision MakingEfforts Throughout GA

Level ofImportance

Research Procedures:

Content ofProgram

implementationPatterns

A general list of schools identified as having implemented site-based decision makingwithin their individual school sites was compiled from several sources. A random sample ofapproximately 400 building level administrators and teachers were surveyed. From thispopulation, 56% elected to return the questionnaire.

The questionnaire was designed in three sections. Part I identified basic demographicdata. Part II required responses related to the existence and importance of the climate, staffdevelopment, competencies, content and implementation patterns of the programs beingreviewed. The final section represented a free response section where respondents could providenarrative information. This section was found to be extremely valuable, as many had indicatedthat their program was in its infancy.

Respondents were asked to rate their perceptions on specific items in two ways. First,they were asked to indicate what they believed already existed in their school and then rate thatitem on their perception of its importance. Responses were converted to a scale of 1-5; one being

the lowest possible score representing a response of never and 5 the highest representing aresponse of always or a priority.

As the audience who would benefit from the research findings the most were educationalpractitioners, not necessarily researchers, data was presented, in most cases, by simple frequencycounts, percentages and weighted scores. It was decided to keep the data as simple as possible soit could be used by a large populatior, of school practitioners. Tables and line graphs were alsoconstructed. Data was analyzed and ,upporting narrative provided.

Analysis of the Data:

Population Demographics:

The population was a sampling of professional educators from elementary, middleschools and secondary schools throughout the state of Georgia. The professional responsibilitiesincluded building level administrators, traditional classroom teachers, and special area teachers.District level administrators were also surveyed; however only one elected to return thequestionnaire. T`articipating schools represented urban, suburban and rural areas. The data issummarized i,3 Table 1 below.

Table 1Population Profile by Professional Responsibility, Years in Education,

School Type and Community Size

Professional Responsibility: School Type:Building Level Administrator 11.36% Elementary 61.82%Classroom Teacher 71.36% Middle School 18.18%Special Area Teacher 16.82% Secondary School 18.18%District Level Administrator .45% Other 1.82%

Years ii2Education: Community Size:1-5 18.18% Urban population 18.64%6-10 17.73% Small city or suburban area 41.36%11-15 23.64% Large Town 8.18%16-20 22.27% Rural Area 30.91%20-25 12.27% No response 1.00%25+ 4.55%

Site Climate:

As site climate is one of the most important issues directly impacting on the overallgrowth and development of teacher involvement into the decision making process, perceptions of

10

respondents pertaining to both what existed and the value of that condition were initiallyexamined.

Over 80% of the respondents agreed that the climate at their school promoted educationalplanning as a collaborative effort between teachers and administrators; 30% suggested thatcollaborative effort alway. existed. In addition, 49% of the respondents indicated that teachersare always involved in making school improvement through cooperativeplanning and itsimplementation. Further, over 95% of the respondents perceived teacher involvement in schoolimprovement a priority or, at the very least, very important.

As teachers and administrators alike, were aware of the reports for increased teacherinvolvement, a question was generated to identify levels of cooperation between teachers andlocal administrators. Just under 40% of the population perceived the shift of decision makingresponsibilities to be expected. When asked whethercooperation between teachers and localcentral office administrators regarding the shifting of decision making responsibilities isexpected, just under 15% reported that in the case of district level administrators, resistancemight exist. This lower reporting may be due to the fact that district administrators do not dealdirectly with teachers and instruction. Nevertheless, almost 82% of the respondents perceiveddistrict level administrator support to be extremely important or a priority. It is interesting tonote that over 89% of the respondents indicated that building level administrators recognizeteacher involvement in decision making responsibilities. Teachers and administrators bothgenerally perceive building level administrators to be a key figure in this process. This key rolemay take the form of a facilitator, arbitrator, resource person or liaison between the faculty,central administration and the general public at large.

In terms of existing climate, 74% of the respondents perceived that teachers would bewilling to give up some of their own time and commit themselves to the collaborative processwhile over 93% of the respondents felt that this was a priority or very important that teachers dothis. Moreover, the greater majority perceived that the decision making process be a sharedresponsibility with administrators especially when it comes to identifying local school problemsand coming up with solutions. It is evident that teachers do not wish to see a climate thateliminates administrators from the process; rather a total inclusionary process is perceived to bethe most desirable. Optimism increased as the majority of participants felt that high morale isexpected as a result of implementing an inclusionary model involving site-based decision makingin their schools. Further, they suggest that site-based decision making is expected to improve thequality of work life for the entire school; not just for teachers. In addition, parent/school

11

communications improved and the adoption of site-based decision making is expected tocontribute to the overall improvement of relationships with parents. Table 2 and Figure 2 presentthe existence versus importance weighted scores for comparison.

Table 2Climate - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Scale (1-5; 5 being the highest)Score forExistence

Score forImportance

1. Educational planning is a collaborative effort between teachers and administrators. 4.06 4.492. Teachers are involved in school improvement planning and its implementation. 4.31 4.563. Cooperation between teachers and local school administratorsregarding the

shifting of decision making responsibilities is expected. 4.06 4.414. Cooperation between teachers and local central office administrators regarding

the shifting of decision making responsibilities is expected. 3.36 4.185. If given decision making power teachers would be willing to give of

their time and commit themselves to the process. 3.96 4.446. Teachers and local school administrators together shareresponsibility for

identifying local school problems and coming up with solutions. 4.02 4.477. Higher morale is expected as a result of site-based decision making. 4.08 4.418. Site-based decision making is expected to improve the quality of work life. 4.16 4.439. Site-based decision making is expected to contribute to the improvement of

arent/school communications. 3.95 4.30

Figure 2Climate - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Line Graph Comparison by Item

5.00 -

4.50 -4.00 -

3.50 -

Score 3.00 -

2.50 -

2.00 -1.50 -

.6- Existence

4:3- Importance

1.00 -1--f--1-1-4-f-1-1-11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Item Statement

All the questions on the survcy instrument related to the site climate received fairly highweighted scores suggesting that site climate is an extremely important part of implementing site-based decision making in a school. However, when comparing the perceived importance to the

perceived existence, importance always received a higher rating. This would suggest that much

needs to be done to improve individual school climates to facilitate site-based decision making.

However, it is a concept that has established its ma's into the very fabric of schools and

aspirations of the respondents suggest that healthy climates are on the rise.

Staff Development:

As with any new concept, staff development efforts need to be designed and developed to

insure optimal understanding. These efforts, in many cases are shared responsibilities between

the central administration and the teacher work force. They may take the form of formal

workshops, classes or less formal engagements such as information sharing or simple dialogue.

Whatever shape or form staff development takes, it is vital to the growth of peer leadership

development which, in turn, is the basis of all site-based decision making efforts. When asked

whether teachers and administrators discuss educational issues from professional journals on a

regular basis, only 14.22% of the population suggested this activity always existed. Only

17.05% perceived this dialogue to be a priority. However, the majority did suggest that it was

important. In terms of more formalized arrangements such as workshops or courses, teachers

and administrators cooperatively plan activities related to shared governance and decision

making. This was the perception of approximately 86% of the population surveyed. In the

greater majority of schools, research and locally gathered data are used to develop school

improvement plans. Less than 14% of the respondents suggested that data gathering activities

did not exist. This would suggest that teachers and administrators recognize the use of scientific

processes in cooperative planning and perhaps within the shared governance process as well.

Overall, 86% indicated that teachers and administrators cooperatively explore specific

information about site-based decision making concepts prior to implementation. In both actual

existence and in importance, collaborative efforts by teachers and administrators in both

developing and providing staff development was rated the highest. Again, however, the

perceived importance of any given concept in staff development was rated higher than the

existence of these concepts in an actual school site. Table 3 and Figure 3 present a graphical

comparison of this data.

13

t6

Table 3Staff Development - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Scale (1-5; 5 being the highest)Score forExistence

Score forImportance

1. Teachers and administrators together discuss educational issues from professionaljournals on a regular basis. 2.97 3.55

2. Teachers and administrators cooperatively plan for staff, development activitiesrelated to shared governance and decision making. 3.71 4.09

3. Site-based decision making is supported through staff development funds andassistance from the central office. 3.60 4.20

4. Staff development programs are developed/provided by teachers and administrators. 3.82 4.225. Research and locally gathered data are used to develop school improvement plans. 3.63 4.136. Teachers and administrators explored specific information about site-based decision

makin cone is nor to im lementation. 3.78 4.16

Figure 3Staff Development - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Line Graph Comparison by Item

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

Score 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

1 2 3 4 5 6

Item Statement

- Existence

43 Importance

Basic Competencies:

When engaging in site-based decision making and shared governance, various basic

competencies must exist or be obtained to insure a high level of success. The building

administrator or principal has been identified as a key figure during this transformational process.

For example in terms of existence, over 97% suggested that principals must have a clear vision

of the school's mission and should be able to articulate that mission. In terms of importance, all

agreed this concept was important with the majority indicating it was a top priority.

14

17

In addition, the ability to reach group consensus was among the priority skills forteachers. 99.9% of the respondents rated this as important, very important or a priority.Although the mission statement and role of the principal received the highest rating, clearlyconsensus building on the part of teachers and successfully employing non-confrontational skillsin the decision making process are imperative. Further, accepting responsibility for the successor failure of site-based decision outcomes by all of the school staff also received a high ratir.3.Shared governance and decision making does mean shared responsibility, and teachers perceivethis. Generally, the respondents perceived that teachers and administrators should set and worktowards common goals based on visions they have made cooperatively. The respondents felt thatit was important to update the school mission statement periodically and that statementsdeveloped should reflect the values of the entire staff. Comparisons of existence versusimportance weighted scores for competency areas are displayed in Table 4 and Figure 4respectively.

Table 4Competencies - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Scale (1-5; 5 being the highest)

Score forExistence

Score forImportance1. The principal has a clear vision of the school's mission and is able to articulate it. 4.39 4.702. Teachers can reach decisions basedon group consensus. 3.97 4.453. School staff is prepared to accept responsibility for successes or failures of

site-based decision outcomes once they are implemented. 3.86 4.334. Belief statements are developed that reflect the values of the staff. 4.01 4.285. Teachers and administrators set and work toward common goals based on thevisions they have made together. 4.16 4.566. Teachers and administrators periodically develop and/or update a mission statementfor the school.

4.02 4.257. Teachers and administrators can demonstrate non-confrontational skills in thedecision making process.

3.91 4.378. Data and other information are collected to be used for proposed changes. 3.71 4.20

15

is

Figure 4Competencies - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Line Graph Comparison by Item

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

Score 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00 1 I I I fti--1-12 31 4 5 6 7 8

Item Statement

-0- Existence

CI- Importance

Program Content and Implementation Patterns:

Earlier in the introduction, we indicated that because schools were uniquely different,content and implementation patterns world be different as well. We, as a team, would suggestthat those differences should be identifiei and become part of the individualized site plan.Notwithstanding, there are some areas that can transcend these differences. As identified in thissurvey, implementation patterns receiving the highest scores are two areas of vital importance.Among these patterns were the fact that teachers and administrators have developed a writtenplan to implement site-based decision making within their school site. Also along these samelines, building goals are communicated to the public via newsletters, parent meetings and thelike. Communications were also rated the highest in terms of importance. It was furthersuggested that student test results and other forms of data are used in program planning.Matching outcomes to future school directions should be of primary concern.

Teachers being allowed to incorporate changes in curriculum or methodology in theclassroom based on site-based decision making and outcomes at the local school level receivedthe second highest weighted score in this area. This would suggest that given test scores andother forms of data, teachers should collectively analyze this information and bring about changein the classrooms. These changes may include defining grade level skills and variouscompetencies developed at the local site. This might even include establishing such school wide

16

programs as ungraded or multi-aged classroom environments if teachers and administrators

perceive that outcomes will improve under these arrangements.

Directly related to curricular and methodological choice in the area of content and

implementation is the establishment of maintenance activities that would update and strengthen

the program. Approximately 67.6 percent rated this activity to be important. This would suggest

that both implementation processes in site-based decision making and the decisions themselves

would be monitored and changed or updated depending upon the needs at the site or changes in

various variables s'ich as the student population or community resources.

Forty eight percent of the sites surveyed suggest that orientations and staff development

training was very important or a priority for both teachers and administrators. The site-based

decision making process needs to be explored thoroughly. Weighted scores would also indicate

that teachers and administrators assess the risks and benefits of site-based decision making as

either part of the staff development process or separately. Such things as concept development,

time tables for implementation, personnel involvement and the like, hold characteristics that have

both risks and benefits during implementation. They need to be placed in perspective. In

addition, teachers want decision making involvement when developing the school's instructional

and staff develop budget although this may not be as high a priority. This is sometimes viewed

as a district level administrative function. Nevertheless, teachers need to be involved in

identifying their own school needs and actively participate in activities designed to meet those

needs. This is a shared responsibility that cannot be dictated from a top-down posture.

Of less importance to the population being surveyed was the inclusion of parents and

students into the decision making process. This may be due to the fact that teacher empowerment

itself is new and therefore involving parents and students at this stage of development may be

perceived as premature.

Generally respondents to the questionnaire perceive the adoption process in the

implementation of site-based decision making as ongoing evolutionary process that requires a

great deal of flexibility. Extenr1 consultants are used by many schools but they are considered

of moderate importance.

As in the other areas, respondents to the survey perceived all initial implementation

patterns to be more important than what they perceived to actually exist. This would suggest that

aspirations are high while they continue to deal with the realities of public school service.

Table 5 and Figure 5 provide a comparison of implementation patterns.

Table 5Implementation Patterns - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Scale (1 -5.5 bein: the hi hest)Score forExistence

Score forImportance

1. Teachers and administrators have assessed the risks and benefits of site-baseddecision making. 3.71 4.13

2. Teachers and administrators have examined alternative approaches. 3.55 4.023. Teachers and administrators have developed a written plan to implement site

based decision making. 3.92 4.394. Orientation and training have been provided for both teachers and administrators. 3.69 4.305. Maintenance activities updating or strengthening the program have been established. 3.43 4.156. Student test results and other forms of data are used in program planning. 3.76 4.157. Follow up activities are used to monitor improvement and changes. 3.61 4.168. Building goals are communicated to the public via newsletters, parent meetings, etc. 3.94 4.309. The school brings parents into an active role in planning and achieving the

goals of the school. 3.54 4.0510. Central office and the local school work interdependently in the site-based

decision making process. 3.25 3.9411. Administrators grant teachers release time for site-based decision making 3.27 4.1312. Both periodic and end of school year evaluations are built into operational plans

that carry out school improvement activities. 3.66 4.1113. Grade level skills competencies are developed at the local site and understood by

all staff members and parents. 3.17 4.1014. Teachers have decision making involvement in regard to the school's instructional

and staff development budget. 3.40 4.0815. Parents have been included in the decision making process. 3.09 3.8016. Students have been included in the decision making process. 2.65 3.4517. Teachers are allowed to incorporate changes in curriculum or methodology in the

classroom based on site-based decision making outcomes at the local school. 3.83 4.3418. An external consultant is used to assist implementation of a site-based

decision/management model in your school. 3.3E' 3.79

FigureImplementation Patterns - Existence vs Importance by Weighted Score

Line Graph Comparison by Item

5.00

4.50

4.00

3.50

Score 3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Item Statement

-°- Existence

43- Importance

When reviewing the free response section of the questionnaire, many patterns began to

emerge. For example, many of the sites surveyed were at the beginning stages of program

development in site-based decision making. Prior to engaging in shared governance activities,

the overwhelming majority indicated that teachers perceived that they had very little control over

their own environment and yet had many responsibilities for which they were held accountable.

This lack of ownership in some cases was devastating to the morale of the staff and impacted

such variables as teacher retention and the overall climate in the school.

Several testimonials suggest that in order for site-based decision making to work, all staff

must "buy" into the concept. Central office staff in particular were singled out. One respondent

stated that "the central office must allow a lot of free rein; if not, site-based management will

always be crippled or demoralized." The respondent goes on to say, "people will lose faith and

give up the process if only lip service is given." Others suggest that the central office must share

the same vision. They also indicated that developing a mission statement means very little if no

money backs it up. Restructuring will need financial support over a period of time as teachers

and administrators assume different roles.

Time was a major factor. Restructuring must be supported by ample time and training for

transition. When this happened one suggested, it became easier to set goals, develop plans and

19

22

reach consensus. In addition, programs grow stronger and teachers are beginning to receive

support as the central administration sees improvements. More freedom is allowed and more

finances are directed towards success.

Many of the comments indicated that work at the schools has become more reliable,efficient and effective. For example, there appears to be more interest and enthusiasm and

experiences have been mostly positive. One indicated that improvements in test scores, attitudesand increased involvement has been seen. Along those same lines, one reported that, "site-baseddecision making has been the most unifying and stimulating innovation to this school in itshistory." She goes on to say, "it has freed teachers to design andcreate educational initiatives."A certain level of pride permeates the school and the climate appears to be focused towardscreating a better future.

With any new venture, frustration is experienced. Howevergreat strides are being made.Some of this frustration was related to the lack of understanding on the part of the principals. .

One respondent states that, "levels of understanding varies greatly according to each individual."It was pointed out that communications needs to be stronger.

Conclusions:

There are many inferences that can be drawn from the findings. The role of the buildinglevel administrator will increase in importance; especially during the transformational periodwhen top down mandates and bottom-up recommendations exist in the same school district. Inaddition to facilitating communications between the central office and the instructional staff, thebuilding level administrator must facilitate opportunities for teachers to be involved in decisionmaking. The level of implementation of site-based decision making and the level of district levelsupport appears to be directly connected with the level of success in the various instructional

programs and the ability of the principal to communicate that success to the powers-to-be, i.e.central administration, the Board of Education and the parents.

Commitment on the part of central administration was foremost on the minds of many ofthe respondents. Some teachers indicated a reluctance by the central administration to endorse or

support site-based decision making efforts. Funding support for staff development, teacherrelease time and the like, usually is funneled through the central office and this may have beenthe reason for their concerns.

20

2"

Staff development should be an on going activity for both administrators and teachers.

Concepts in group dynamics, conflict resolution and program review and risk assessment are

areas that should be explored. Accordingly, building group consensus was among the highest of

priorities. The study suggests that teachers and administrators should incorporate change.

However these changes and improvements should be monitored and evaluation plans should be

built into operational plans.

The local school, the central office and parents should work interdependently in the

planning and in the achievement of school improvement goals. Further, the study would suggest

using an independent external consultant to assist in the implementation of site-based decision

making. This would bring some very needed expertise and some objectivity as well. Among the

most often reported were the League of Professional Schools and RESA.

Summary:

The major findings of this study would suggest that the prevailing conditions in regards

to the present climate within the schools of Georgia are.such that site-based decision making can

begin to evolve. Teacher involvement in school improvement was a high priority and the

existence of that involvement was highly expected.

Of some concern was whether the cooperation between teachers and central office

administrators would increase as many perceived some resistance from this group. The greater

majority of the respondents perceive the support of central office administration to be very

important. The shared governance initiatives of teachers and school level administrators would

be very difficult if cynicism on the part of central administrators was a basis on which the

climate of schools existed. Public attitudes towards schooling in America suggest that society is

ready for change in the way schools do business. As schools respond and begin to draw from

support for new initiatives, talents can be released to create a better climate.

Respondents would suggest that building level administrators are crucial for the

implementation of site-based decision making to occur within their respective schools.

Furthermore, the respondents indicate that this activity be based on an inclusionary concept

which involves both administrators and teachers in a shared governance approach. Generally,

the perception does not elude to the fear that with true site-based decision making, the

empowerment of teachers excludes administrators. 3n the contrary, responsibility should he

shared and the building level administrator plays a decisive role.

21

24

The greater majority suggested that change at their site was painstakingly slow.

Retaining a consultant or working with groups in higher education appears to be beneficial in

working towards success in this area. Clearly, the more teachers and building level

administrators share responsibility for decision making, the more uncertainty both groups

experience. Working with a consulting group such as the Program for School Improvement

(PSI) directed by Carl Glickman from the University of Georgia, or others ofa similar missionwould provide a support mechanism that could be extremely helpful.

Staff development is an important variable and total participation is a priority. Schoolshave very complex problems and inclusionary models such as site-based decision making is also

a complex process. The participants of the study believe that the staff development efforts

should be cooperatively planned. Among the priorities include specific training of site-based

decision making skills themselves. Engaging in action research to develop improvement plans

was also considered important.

Many competencies were examined. Defining clear mission statements and building

group consensus were extremely important for success. The ability of teachers and

administrators to set and work towards common goals based on thn mission they have developed,was also necessary.

There are many generic activities that should be included when implementing site-based

decision making in a school. Having a written plan was one of the highest priorities and

communicating the goals which grow out of this plan to the public was also of great importance.

Good site-based decision making efforts do not happen by accident. They are well thoughtthrough and planned. Innovations do not happen arbitrarily. They grow out of a plan as welland are usually implemented with the support of the community. Therefore communicating

innovative efforts to parents should be of major consideration. Among these changes should becreating opportunities for teachers to incorporate change into their curriculum or methodology.Further more, these changes should be based on such variables as test scores and other types of

data. Risk taking would be encouraged. However, it should be calculated risk focused onoutcome measures.

Should these patterns of implementation occur, site-based decision making will grow andshortly it will have a solid influence on overall school improvement. The road to teacher

22

25

empowerment will be a long and slow moving one, but it will endure and will create and foster a

better and more responsive school environment.

References:

Barnard, C. I. (1938). The functions of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Georgia Association of Educators Restructuring of Schools Task Force. (1991). RestructuringGeorgia's schools for success: The practitioner view.

Glickman, C. (1989). Has Sam and Samantha's time come at last?. Educational Leadership,May 4-9.

Glickman, C. (1990). Pushing school reform to a new edge: The seven ironies of schoolempowerment. Phi Delta Kappan, September, 68-75.

Goodlad, J. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw Hill.

Harvey, G. & Crandall, D. (1988). A beginning look at the what and how of restructuring. TheRegional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, US Departmentof Education.

Hersey, P. & Blanchard, K. (1988). Management organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs:Prentice Hall.

Herzbergh, F. Mausner, B. & others. (1959). The motivation to work. New York: Wiley.

Lewis, A. (1989). Restructuring America's schools, American Association of SchoolAdministrators.

Liken, R. (1961). New patterns of management. New York: McGraw Hill.

Mayo, E. (1945). The social problems of en industrial civilization. Cambridge, MA: HarvardBusiness School.

McGregor, Douglas. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw Hill.

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative foreducational reform. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

National Education Association, Professional and Organizational Development/ResearchAssociation. (1988). Employee participation programs: Considerations for the school site.

National Education Association. Professional and Organizational Development/ResearchDivision. Site-based decision making: A guide and training manual.

Perrow, Charles. (1979). Complex organization. New York: Random House.

23

26

IL

Smith, R., and Herbert, K. (1967). The development of a facultative environment for learningand research through r & i units in the secondary school (1966-67). Working Paper No. 8,Madison, Wisconsin: Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.

Task Force on Teaching as a Profession of the Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy.(1986). A National Prepared: Teachers for the twenty-first century. Carnegie Corporation ofNew York.

Taylor, Frederick W. (1911). The principles of scientific management. New York: Harper andBrothers.

Timar, T. B., & D. L. (1987). Educational reform and institutional competence. HarvardEducational Review, 57(3), 308-330.

24